Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Huh. I don't watch many Angels games, but it looks like their usual OF configuration last year was Trumbo-Trout-Torii, so Josh could slide right into the Torii hole. Makes sense. I'm curious, Angels fans, what seemed to be their plan for RF before this signing?

That's more than I'd want to pay for Hamilton. Not by tons, but by a couple million per season.

So basically it's a good deal? If their choices were to have the Rangers sign him for $23M/year or they sign him for $25M/year I can see why they'd choose the latter option. This seems like a good deal for the Angels if you ask me. Using Swartz's numbers he just has to be a 4 WAR player for this to be a market value deal, and even if it were higher than a market value deal, it could still be good because the Angels can now trade Bourjos or Trumbo for a pitcher, in addition to signing Sanchez/Jackson/Lohse/Marcum.

Using Swartz's numbers he just has to be a 4 WAR player for this to be a market value deal, and even if it were higher than a market value deal, it could still be good because the Angels can now trade Bourjos or Trumbo for a pitcher, in addition to signing Sanchez/Jackson/Lohse/Marcum.

What are Swartz's numbers?

My back of the envelope calculation is $5.5M per win with 5% inflation, projecting future WAR by a very simple 0.5 per season decline. That would mean Hamilton needs to project as a 5 WAR player to be worth this contract.

I'm not, like, railing against this contract for the Angels. I think it's basically market value plus a small but notable premium. The determinative question with Hamilton is health (physical and mental), and we really won't know whether this was a good bet until after he's been playing, or not playing, for a couple seasons.

I had the feeling the market was too low for Hamilton and that somebody would swoop in. Good pick up for the Halos, takes some thunder back from the Dodgers. I'd guess they would go Hamilton/Bourjos/Trout left to right and dangle Trumbo, but it's just a guess. Bourjos might bring more in trade.

I'm actually not all that jazzed by this. Probably has something to do with Hamilton's past. Maybe the fact that it wasn't a position of need. Maybe it's because my dad died a month ago and I have no one to call and talk to about this. Gonna be a heck of a middle of the lineup this year though. If they can score a ton of runs, it looks like the bullpen may be able to actually finish games this year.

Notice as well that the deal ends just as Trout hits free agency, assuming he's not locked up before that. Or more likely they structure his deal so that the dollars go way up in 2018.

MCoA, how do you deal with contract length? My understanding is that the $/win calculations ignore that premium players are compensated with longer contracts. Since Hamilton is a premium player (at least in this market) but isn't getting as long a deal as some, that has a particularly large impact.

MCoA, what I'm getting at is that if you just take the total number of wins provided by free agents, and divide by their total compensation, then you assume that $/wins is linear with wins. It appears to be true if you look at annual value, but it breaks down because premium players sign very long contracts. I understand why people ignore that (it's not an easy problem to solve) but this seems like a case where it could cause a lot of error. If the $/win this year is higher, but the discount for later years should be larger, then a 5-year deal for a premium player is going to be much better in reality than your calculation.

Not sure I'd want to be Bourn. Right now any team he meets with that needs a speedy CF will be weighing Bourn's salary demands against the trade demands from a team with an extra speedy OF whose name also starts with Bour.

If the Angels are paying a "premium in years", then that can show up in the Angels overpaying in year 4 in my method.

Now, it is possible that in general, recent $$/win calculations have come out a little bit too low, because they haven't accounted for the premium player / contract length issue. That would be a problem that would apply equally to Josh Hamilton and Koji Uehara.

It seems to me that you're arguing that this is a problem that applies specifically to the Hamilton contract, and I don't believe that logic follows.

The market has kind of moved around him. Upton signed before he did. Pagan resigned. Victorino signed. The Nats and Reds (who were a lesser contender for a CF/OF than other clubs) made trades. Now Hamilton, who I assume was ahead of Bourn on CF/OF FA list, has signed. Hell even Melky has signed.

Why are people trying to move Mike Trout (10.6 UZR) from CF to make room for Josh Hamilton (-12.6 UZR). Even using the eye test I think it's fairly obvious that Trout (10 years younger) should stay in CF with Hamilton moving to a corner to get ready for his eventually struggle with Pujols for 2016 DH.

That's more than I'd want to pay for Hamilton. Not by tons, but by a couple million per season.

A couple a million a year isn't much more than a rounding error for a high revenue team. You don't want to do it for every player, but that amount shouldn't stop a team from signing a player it wants/needs.

MCoA, my point is that ignoring the non-linearity of wins, which shows up in contract length, gives you a too-low number for $/win, especially for high-win players. It all ends up being a wash if the high-win player signs a long contract, but five years is comparatively short for a premier player.

#53 - Trout is the CF'er unless it is Bourjos. If Bourjos is traded for an arm then Trout will stay a CF'er. If Bourjos stays and Trumbo is shipped for pitching then I see Trout in LF, Bourjos in CF and Hamilton in RF.

I'm mildly surprised that this deal turned up reasonable. I actually feel the opposite of Jim -- it's rare that a player as good as Hamilton signs a contract for less than seven years, and I wish the Red Sox had gotten in on it, given all the money they have to burn.

“His timing on quitting smokeless tobacco couldn’t have been worse,” Ryan said Tuesday on 103.3 KESN-FM in Dallas. “You would’ve liked to have thought that if he was going to do that that he would’ve done it in the offseason, or waited until this offseason to do it. So the drastic affect that it had on him and the year that he was having up to that point in time when he did quit, you’d have liked him to have taken a different approach to that.”

“So those issues caused unrest, and it’s unfortunate that that happened and the timing was such as it was,” Ryan said.

Rangers president and CEO Nolan Ryan joined Galloway and Co. on 103.3 KESN-FM this week to talk about the state of the team. Here are some highlights:

On Josh Hamilton’s struggles:

I think we’re all seeing the same thing. You’re right that some of his at bats aren’t very impressive from the standpoint that he doesn’t work deep into the count, he’s swinging at a lot of bad pitches, he just doesn’t seem to be locked in at all. So what you’re hoping is that his approach will change and he’ll start giving quality at bats because there’s a lot of those at bats that he just gives away. One of the things I’ve always commented on is I can’t ever say that I ever saw Henry [Hank] Aaron give an at bat away. I think as a hitter, you have to go up there and you have to focus on the guy that you’re facing and what he’s been doing as far as the game’s concerned and try to engage what your attempt to do as far as getting a hit off him.

Am I way off thinking that the Rangers could spend that money on Swisher and Anibal Sanchez and be in a better position than if they brought back Hamilton?

You don't get those two for a combined $25 M. Combined cost on those two will be in the $30-35 range I suspect. With Greinke off the market and most of the tradeable pitchers traded, I'm expecting Sanchez to sign for Burnett money at a minimum (5/$80).

Matt, using your numbers, if he averages 4 WAR/season (one definition of a 4-WAR player: over the course of the deal) I get $121.5M value.

Yes but this is the key question in MCoA's method (not that he invented it). To average 4 WAR/year over a 5-year deal while losing half a win a year due to age you need to start as a 5 WAR player. If Hamilton is currently a 4-WAR player then he projects to 15 WAR over the deal and this is an overpay by about 50% (after inflation taken into account).

You really have to squint to think Hamilton is a 5-WAR player right now. Yes, 15 WAR over the last 3 years but just 7 WAR the last 2 years, 16 WAR the last 4 and 21 WAR the last 5. Unless he's got another 2010 in him or you think he's now going to start playing 155-160 games a year, it's hard for me to see him being more than a 4-WAR player right now.

However, although I've never looked at it, I've got my doubts about that "5 runs per year" performance/durability decline. In 4 years Hamilton will be average? That doesn't ring true to me. I wonder how much of that 5 run discount is injury risk. Granted, in the final valuation, that might not make a difference.

The contract is too long.

Maybe but perfectly standard. Teams are clearly quite willing to sign "stars" through their age 36 season. In fact, it's nearly an industry standard now -- 36 yes, 37 no unless you're ARod, Pujols or Votto. Cabrera's next contract will probably take him past that.

MCoA, my point is that ignoring the non-linearity of wins, which shows up in contract length, gives you a too-low number for $/win, especially for high-win players. It all ends up being a wash if the high-win player signs a long contract, but five years is comparatively short for a premier player.

Not short for a premier player at this age (see above). Almost nobody is getting signed beyond their age 36 season, most are getting signed through their age 35-36 season. That may be wise or not but this is a perfectly standard contract length for this type of player at this point in his career. If he'd repeated 2010, that would be a different story. But teams are no longer interested in paying for that age 37+ non-production -- they seem to have decided that the aging curve is non-linear too.

#53 - Trout is the CF'er unless it is Bourjos. If Bourjos is traded for an arm then Trout will stay a CF'er. If Bourjos stays and Trumbo is shipped for pitching then I see Trout in LF, Bourjos in CF and Hamilton in RF.

The Angels have a lot of options. Really none of Trumbo, Bourjos or Morales should be an everyday player and Hamilton probably won't be so you should see a lot of:

Morales, Hamilton and Trumbo/Bourjos vs RHP
Trumbo, Hamilton and Bourjos vs LHP
Trumbo, Wells and Bourjos vs LHP when Hamilton needs a day off
Morales/Wells, Trumbo and Bourjos when Hamilton is hurt

Figure out of Trumbo, Bourjos, Morales and Hamilton that one guy gets 600 PA (Hamilton hopefully), two get 500 and one gets 400. Trout gets 700 and Wells mops up. Trumbo also gets some time at 1B with Pujols resting or DH. Regardless, only under bizarre circumstances does Hamilton see any time in CF.

But they could trade Trumbo or Morales or Bourjos. Since I've got pretty serious doubts about Brett Jackson, I'd be fine with a Garza for Bourjos trade I think ... assuming we can't get a Dayton Moore/Kevin Towers special for Garza. :-) But, for the Cubs, I've got no interest in Trumbo/Morales.

So does this mean it's Bourjos or Trumbo who gets traded for RA Dickey? (Can the Mets take Wells, too?)

I just got a rush thinking that same though. If the Angles take on a bunch of Wells' money, Trumbo and even Wells would be a big upgrade over the hilarious outfield the Mets were running out last season. THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

The length of the contract is almost exactly determined by years until your age 36 season. Wright managed to squeeze an extra year out of the Mets. If you look at the super-long extensions, Braun & Longoria go through 36 and Tulo through 35 but Votto was able to get through 39. Presumably there was some chance that Hamilton might squeeze out that extra year if there was enough competition for his services.

Quite possibly my single favorite sentence of commentary yet written on the riskiness of the Hamilton deal, from the indispensable Jeff Sullivan:

I cannot repeat enough how troubled I am by Hamilton's reduced contact rate in 2012 -- he made more contact than Carlos Peguero, but less contact than Miguel Olivo, and Miguel Olivo swings and misses like he's doing it for charity.

The way I deal with these types of long term deals to guys signed for thru their mid-late 30's when I want a quick and dirty "mental" note is to simply take the last year of the contract for a 4 or 5 year deal or the last two years of a 7 or 8 year deal and divide it into the preceeding years.

In other words, I think that the teams are smart enough to know that it's likely there is going to be a year of little or no value in this 5 year deal, so to the Angels way of valuing him, it's really like 4 years, 31.25 million per year for the Angels, and if they get production out of him the 5th year, then it's a bonus and they got to defer some money.

This is the only way I can rationalize the length of some of the contracts given to guys Hamilton's age. I mean he is not going to become less injury prone for ages 32-36. So they must be thinking of it this way and just treating spreading the money out over 5 years as a way of deferring some of the cost were it just a 4 year deal.

Same with Albert. I don't think the Angels think that Albert is really going to be producting much the last 3 years of his contract. Again, I look at his deal as 7 yrs 240 million, or 34 million a year, and if he is still healthy enough to play and produce for ages 39-40-41, thats a bonus.

I realize this way of thinking doesn't jive with the dollar/war calculations...but not all dollar/war calculations are created equal.

In other words, I think that the teams are smart enough to know that it's likely there is going to be a year of little or no value in this 5 year deal, so to the Angels way of valuing him, it's really like 4 years, 31.25 million per year for the Angels, and if they get production out of him the 5th year, then it's a bonus and they got to defer some money.

In other words, I think that the teams are smart enough to know that it's likely there is going to be a year of little or no value in this 5 year deal, so to the Angels way of valuing him, it's really like 4 years, 31.25 million per year for the Angels, and if they get production out of him the 5th year, then it's a bonus and they got to defer some money.

I've been trying to write the same post for a long time now and could never quite express it the way that I wanted to. This more or less covers it as well as I ever could.

The thinking is throw out the $X per year that we've come to rely on. The Angels think that three years of Josh Hamilton's normal level of production is worth $125MM. We never think that way because we always evaluate contracts on an $X per year approach. The problem is that our value for X is not the value that teams assign to X. If the Angels want three good years from Hamilton, it will cost $125MM period. At that point, the years don't matter, because if he sucks in year four, you cut him in year five, but hopefully you've got the value you purchased at that point. And if he doesn't suck in year four (or five), it's gravy.

Of course the other dynamic at play here is GM vs. Owner. It's easy for Jerry DiPoto to spend five (or ten, in the case of Pujols) years of Arte's money because, hey, GMs are hire and fired all the time. DiPoto won't be fired for overpaying these guys in years 5 and 10 if they win a championship in years 1, 2, or 3. It's quite similar to the dynamic between managers and relievers.

I'll got out on a limb and guess they understand park effects. Sure, Hamilton likely won't reproduce the same raw numbers -- whoop de doo. Unless you think that's going to weigh on him psychologically.

Interesting numbers on the park effects but the key question isn't each park's impact on LHB but its (well, Anaheim only really) impact on LHB relative to RHB. If Anaheim has features which are likely to hurt Hamilton substantially more than it would hurt other batters, then it's a problem. Otherwise, he'll still project to about a 135 OPS+ with power.

For me (A's fan, but not being an ass here) I gotta think going Trout and Hamilton in the corners with Bourjos in CF is what works best. Mix in Pujols/Trumbo/Morales as your 1B/DH and you've still got Trumbo/Wells as your 4th & 5th OF'ers.

Maybe dump Wells off on the Astros as a COF/DH and pay his salary in return for a young, merely decent 5th OF that can cover all three OF positions? Offer up Morales instead and angle for Bud Norris? Be ok with Hamilton and Trumbo in the corners, Trout in CF and move Bourjos for something?

Playing around with the park overlay feature on hittracker, it looks like Arlington is deeper in most parts of RF than Anaheim. I realize that weather plays a big role in park factors but it seems odd that there's such a big discrepancy between the parks for LHB HRs. Especially with Anaheim's development as a pitcher's park being somewhat recent.

I've been trying to write the same post for a long time now and could never quite express it the way that I wanted to. This more or less covers it as well as I ever could.

You will forgive me for filing this one away with a smile. While I believe I may have an insight or two to contribute at this site, it's not often I actually articulate it better than most any poster here could. :)

Yeah, they might get a player whose not constantly getting warn down by playing 10-8 games in 105 degree heat. He'll be fine. Raw numbers will take a hit but who cares. He plays for Jesus and the big guy certainly knows how to make park adjustments.

Jerry Dipoto understands park factors and park adjusted stats as well as any GM in the game.Trust me he sees Hamilton as a 130-140 OPS+ guy, but in a shape that he prefers for his roster construction. (Power heavy) However I guess he is far less trusting of fielding metrics which dinged Hamilton's value last year, but he is not going to play CF anymore anyway, so fielding won't be such a big negatve.

Jerry Dipoto understands park factors and park adjusted stats as well as any GM in the game.

I'm sure he does, but going from +33% to -22% HR takes Hamilton down from the elite to the merely very good. Problem is, they paid for elite. He's not durable and they get him from ages 32-37. I don't think this is as disastrous as the Pujols contract, but this would have been a much better contract in Arlington.

"Torii, you're old, your skills are in steep decline, and we don't want you anymore".

Better, Torii?

I dunno, you've got a reasonable point. On the other hand, Torii Hunter has consistently been one of the most affable and likeable players in all of MLB -- and he earned a paycheck in LAA that pretty much every Primate here assumed would be a drastic overpay back when his deal was originally inked -- so if anyone is entitled to some straight talk from management, it's him. How hard would it have been to say "hey, we love you and thanks for all the fish, but you just don't fit in with our current plans"?